Kerbal Space Program

[orderoftheflame]

Cool. I noticed the cost of parts was pretty meaningless in the free version, I presume the missions will use it more when they're in (do xyz with a budget of $xxxx)?

Might have to look into getting it tonight then.

 

[Seanoog]

Just tried the free version of this last night and had a great blast.

Does the paid version offer much more depth to the game with missions and scenarios to beat or stuff?

What makes it worth upgrading?

Cool. I noticed the cost of parts was pretty meaningless in the free version, I presume the missions will use it more when they're in (do xyz with a budget of $xxxx)?

Might have to look into getting it tonight then.

One of the biggest advantages to going paid version is, Continued support.
Demo version is locked off at 13.3 an its getting no extra features.

The paid versions continue to get updated every 4-8 weeks.
List of extra features in 15.2:
Persistance - Save an return to orbiting/landed vessels later.
Minimus - Secound orbiting Mun.
Terrain - New terrain models, significantly better GFX.
Run way + 20-30 new aircraft parts with engines.
Lander legs + Gears with animations.
New heat model, engines glow an have toggable On/Off switchs.
Automatic updater included.

All new Craft Files + Persistance Files are compatible with newest build.


KSP 16 is in development. 2 weeks now, list of planned features.
@ http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=13530.0

 

[Glaucus]

It's well worth getting if you like the demo

. Think one of the next things is keep track of costing of the ships so you can set yourself a budget.

It's not planned for the next release and I would be very surprised if it was included any time in the next year. It's an easy implementation and would stop us testing the game for them quickly after every new release.

I want two features more than anything else. Renetery physics and docking.
Reentry physics will make ships so much harder to build, any soft bits ripped or burnt of.. No more just having aging ship with just a parachute and just basically crashing it and deploying said chute.

 

[Jongo]

It's well worth getting if you like the demo




It's not planned for the next release and I would be very surprised if it was included any time in the next year. It's an easy implementation and would stop us testing the game for them quickly after every new release.

I want two features more than anything else. Renetery physics and docking.
Reentry physics will make ships so much harder to build, any soft bits ripped or burnt of.. No more just having aging ship with just a parachute and just basically crashing it and deploying said chute.

I imagine both of those features will be quite hard to implement although i also would love to see them, being able to put up a space station in parts would be utterly fantastic. Then watch it crash into the earth because you slightly nudged it

 

[Glaucus]

I imagine both of those features will be quite hard to implement although i also would love to see them, being able to put up a space station in parts would be utterly fantastic. Then watch it crash into the earth because you slightly nudged it

They're planned and docking has already been worked on, just not ready for release yet.

 

[PinkFloyd]

It's not planned for the next release and I would be very surprised if it was included any time in the next year. It's an easy implementation and would stop us testing the game for them quickly after every new release.

Oh yeh I wouldn't want them to implement it in a way that would restrict us from sandbox style play. Would be nice of it to currently have a total saying how expensive your ship is though

Re-entry and Docking will be awesome once it is ingame and working

 

[marc1024]

Not many people would find this interesting but, i have been trying to find the maximum distance you can orbit kerbin while keeping a near perfect circle. Periapsis is 82,504,112m. Which is very close to being a near circle orbit.

 

[Seanoog]

Great work Marc.
I am not one for getting perfect orbits, just dont see the point. But I know it takes skill to achieve them!
I usually try close too perfect circle, 1-2KM variation, thats about 500M - 1KM above stable orbit! So for Kerbin, 700KM-700.5KM over kerbin! just so I have a perfect view!
Or I just go nuts, an do the opposite, with massive differences in Pe-Po distance! An use low orbit litho-brakeing.
Scares the **** out of the Kerbals every time, while under 20+G Deaceleration!

Having finally made it too Minimus, I am busy discovering it! Or finding lost air bases on Kerbin at present!

 

[orderoftheflame]

Loving this so far.

I keep wanting to go straight to the moon, but think I should figure out orbiting first.

I presume you can't just aim at the moon and go? You need to get a good arc and meet up with it's orbit?

 

[Boycey0211]

Loving this so far.

I keep wanting to go straight to the moon, but think I should figure out orbiting first.

I presume you can't just aim at the moon and go? You need to get a good arc and meet up with it's orbit?

Read the last few pages, this is something that gets brought up every other page now

 

[orderoftheflame]

Read the last few pages, this is something that gets brought up every other page now

I figured it out myself in the end.

First orbit went eliptical (I guess it does for most people) and I had no idea what to do in order to calm it down, ran out of fuel trying.

Found a video explaining very simply how to smooth out an orbit though. Second attempt went much nicer.

Trying to figure out how to rotate orbits now.

 

[Glaucus]

I still cant "dock". I've got to within several KM a couple of times, but thats as close as I can get.

 

[Seanoog]

I figured it out myself in the end.

First orbit went eliptical (I guess it does for most people) and I had no idea what to do in order to calm it down, ran out of fuel trying.

Found a video explaining very simply how to smooth out an orbit

Trying to figure out how to rotate orbits now.

Easy...
If you wish too keep said orbit in picture perfectly circular.
Turn ASAS off, Then A/D too bank Left/Right to 90 Degrees from original vector an burn until orbit change is complete.

That make sense?

 

[orderoftheflame]

Easy...
If you wish too keep said orbit in picture perfectly circular.
Turn ASAS off, Then A/D too bank Left/Right to 90 Degrees from original vector an burn until orbit change is complete.

That make sense?

I think it makes sense. You just point at the horizon, perpendicular to your orbit path and burn?

I thought I'd tried it but wasn't having much success last night. Does it take a powerful engine or a long burn to make a big change in angle?

Thanks.

 

[VeNT]

anyone managed to get close to the sun yet?

 

[Glaucus]

anyone managed to get close to the sun yet?

Sort of, got my orbit right down, but even at top warp time it was taking far to long to move no where, it might still be up there though.

It's not actually a physical thing yet is it?

 

[marc1024]

If your all looking for help, trydyingtolive has very good tutorials on things. Hes amazing.

 

[Overlag]

It's not actually a physical thing yet is it?

nope, its just a light sprite and gravity source, so its impossible to hit it. IF you do go through it, you will speed out the other side EXTREMELY fast, never to return.

 

[PinkFloyd]

I think it makes sense. You just point at the horizon, perpendicular to your orbit path and burn?

I thought I'd tried it but wasn't having much success last night. Does it take a powerful engine or a long burn to make a big change in angle?

Thanks.

It can take a fairly long burn. If you keep yourself in the map view so you can see your orbit path, keep yourself aligned as need be (the required position will change as your orbit turns) and just keep an eye as you burn.
Say for example you wanted to change your 100km orbit of Kerbin from vertical to horizontal, you have to burn long enough that your horizontal speed increases to around 2km/s and your vertical speed gets to around 0. It'll take a while

Managed to land a base on the moon yesterday! Next step is minimus!

 

[orderoftheflame]

Cool. I'll give it another try then. Is there much difference in fuel usage depending on how I do it? I mean, would a slow long burn be more efficient than a quicker burn at full whack?

Also, what's the use in the RCS system? It's obviously meant for changing attitude while in orbit or whatever, but I seem to be able to do that regardless of whether it's turned off or on anyway.

Cheers again.